This organisation has an important historical background. It has successfully led the Adivasis in Malkangiri implementing the revolutionary democratic mass line-organise.
This organisation is an excellent example in the democratic functioning of a mass organisation.Various significant political struggles have been led by the Sangh.Emphasis has been placed to involve masses in struggle and democratization of political functioning.
Led by Communist Revolutionary forces the organization 's functioning is a textbook for a mass activist.
The birth of the Sangh took place in reaction to the spontaneous movement of 1977.In the Manuskhunda jungle belt, the forest officials got a number of tribals arrested from 40 villages to punish them for having settled forest lands.10,000 tribals protested against this in Balimela,a working –class area. A Jan Pal Sangh was set up.A large number of tribals in the region were victims of displacement for development projects.
In 1983 the Malkangiri Sangh held it's first conference. However at this time a revisionist trend took place within the organisation.The mass organisation was stripped of all it's powers. There was no more democratic functioning. In 1985 the Sangh put up a candidate for the elections.This was an imposition on the mass organisation
However after 1988 some comrades under the leadership of Purshottam Palli revived the Sangh.The revisionist line was refuted. Political activity was regularised.Mass activity was re-started,village commitees and Panchayat commitees wre re-started Agitations were launched. Collective functioning was emphasized. Representative commitees were selected.Mass organisation members were asked todraft their own leaflets, devise programmes etc.The idea that outside leadership is the centre is removed.The involvement and encouragement of common people was encouraged.
Any leaflet would have to be passed only after being drafted and corrected by mass organization members in the committee.This way a sense of confidence was enthused on the tribals.A special charter of demands was made.Every May Day the Sangh renewed it's charter and the copies of the charter were distributed on a large scale.The significance of each demand was reviewed in the village committee,based on specific instances in local areas .
Solidarity with the working class in Balimela
The Sangh held joint programmes with the workers of Balimela.In 1992 they had a joint May day programme where a rally of 3000 people was staged.The workers had been mobilised to raise demands on behalf of the peasantry.
A leaflet was brought about on May day explaining the connection betweeen the struggle of the workers and the struggles of the tribals.In january 1993 the Tapu tribals grabbed about 1500 acres of land 27 tribals were arrested by the police.
The Balimela workers demonstrated against the police against the arrest.They went into the district's magistrate court and ultimately helped in releasing the tribals.
May Day programmes
In 1992 ,the leadership of the Sangha and the workers of Balimela held a joint programme. Workers were organized to support peasant's demands while peasants were organized to support Peasants demands.The central demands of the tribals were land,jungle and water.
A leaflet as written explaining the birth of the Red Flag,the symbol of the collective strength,sacrifice and Struggle.It discussed he specific oppression faced by the tribals and dalits(scheduled castes ) in the society)It explained the trelatinship between the basic demands although they were relatively small with unity could change the basic conditionsd of labour.It went on to explain that expectations from the electoral process was an illusion.
Yiannis Bournous is responsible for the european policy of the main party of the Syriza coalition. He explains its origins and the politics of the movement that has shaken greek politics and prepares to defeat the austerity policies imposed to his country.
Democracy and Class Struggle is focussing heavily on Political Economy of Iceland and Greece has we feel that the public is ill informed by the British Media on these two Economies.
In a small way we are trying to rectify the disinformation from neo Liberals about the Economic Crisis in Europe.The Cameron/Clegg Coalition in Britain is a mouthpiece for the politically bankrupt Neo Liberals and they will reap what they have sown has people become more aware of different economic solutions possible in the 21st century.
Democracy and Class Struggle is publishing a series of videos to combat media lies about Greece - study the videos and combat the propaganda against Greek Working People their fight is our fight.
Nick Dunbar, author of 'The Devil's Derivatives', reveals how the country turned to investment bank Goldman Sachs for help getting around the deficit rules.
In his report for Newsnight, some of those who did the deal, talk publicly for the first time.
Whilst this debate took place in October 2011 it has not lost its relevance with the passage of time.
A controlled default by Greece appears to be on the agenda.
Democracy and Class Struggle says with all the discussion around the crisis in Greece and the Eurozone there is very little coverage of the recent crisis in Iceland because it does not follow the standard neo liberal script and is therefore ignored by British media.
Whilst Greece is in the Euro this adds an obstacle to her economic recovery which Iceland did not have to contend with, nevertheless, the lessons from Iceland's response to economic crisis is the most instructive in Europe and should be more widely known.
The President Of Iceland Tells Us How He Had The Balls To Stand Up To Britain
Adam Taylor
Business Insider
April 15, 2012
The president of Iceland sits in his study drinking tea from an immaculate china set.
“If a collapse in the financial sector can bring one of the most stable and secure democracies and political structures to his knees as happened in Iceland,” Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson says to me, “then what could it do in countries that have less stable democratic and political history?”
The tiny country is unique not only in its stunning geography but also in its open democracy.
This democracy was pivotal in the choice to let three giant banks fail during the financial crisis.
For Ólafur, the crisis of 2008 was personal. Once the darling of the left wing, he worked as finance minister for several years before he became president of the country in 1996, a largely ceremonial role that he’s inhabited ever since.
Like many in the country he was once a cheerleader for Iceland’s financial sector, privatized at the start of the 21st century — and the sudden collapse was a painful reminder that Iceland was a small, isolated place.
Now, of course, most headlines we see about Iceland seem positive. Iceland is repaying its IMF loans early, unemployment is down, and growth is above average. The streets of Reykjavik seem calm and happy.
Other countries, of course, haven’t been so lucky.
The crisis remains front page news in Greece, Italy and Spain — countries that followed a very different response from Iceland’s.
Ólafur argues that his country’s strength came from recognizing the problem was not just an “economic and financial challenge”, but a “profound social, political, and even judicial” challenge. After the crisis, the country held a full judicial investigation, and went against “the prevailing economic orthodoxies of the American, European and IMF model.” Ólafur says that he likes to think that the IMF learned more from Iceland during this time than vice versa.
A key example of this approach is Iceland’s refusal to pump money into failed banks.
The decision was controversial at the time, but now looks increasingly wise. “I have never understood the argument — why a private bank or financial fund is somehow better for the well being and future of the economy than the industrial sector, the IT sector, the creative sector, or the manufacturing sector”.
There is, of course, another aspect. A tricky situation arose when the U.K. and Holland demanded money for their citizens’ depleted Icesave accounts, and Iceland refused. The incident sparked a major diplomatic scuffle, with Iceland refusing to pay out and the U.K. even using “anti-terrorism legislation” against the state.
For Ólafur, it’s also a personal aspect. He was head of state, though he did not control the government — in effect his position was more like being an elected Queen of England than being Barack Obama.
But constitutionally he had the right to veto government legislation — though it had never been used by his office previously.
Ólafur decided to block government legislation to pay back the U.K. Twice. Both times the legislation went to a nationwide vote, and failed.
“It was absolutely very tough indeed,” Ólafur says. “Every big financial institution, both in Europe and in my own country was against me, and there were powerful forces, both in Iceland and Europe, that thought my decision was absolutely crazy.”
The decision was hugely controversial, and remains a sore spot in relations. For him, it was a matter of history. “What is our primary legacy to countries and nations in modern times?” He says, “Europe is and should be more about democracy than about financial markets.
Based with this choice, it was in the end, clear that I had to choose democracy.”
He also blames the British for their role, specifically Gordon Brown, by whom he believes Iceland is owed an apology. Ólafur likens the situation to the Falklands war, adding it was a “great offense” that “one of the most peace-loving countries in the world, a founding member of NATO, a strong ally of Britain during the Second World War was put together with al-Qaeda and the Taliban on the official list of terrorist organizations.”
Iceland essentially had no choice, Ólafur says.
“If you take the relative size of the Icelandic economy and the British economy,” he explains, “and you transfer over to the British economy the sum that the British government was asking the Icelandic taxpayers to be responsible for due to the failure of this private bank, it would have been equal [...] to asking the British taxpayer to be responsible for an £800 billion bill [$1,275 billion] for a failed British bank in Spain and Italy and Greece.”
Adam Taylor / Business Insider
To Ólafur’s credit, the Icesave debts are likely to be settled soon, using money from the estate of Landsbanki.
He believes that if the U.K. and Holland had waited a while longer there would have been no conflict.
After 2008, Icelandic relations with Europe may have been strained. It was during a dinner with foreign diplomats that year that Ólafur reportedly said “The North Atlantic is important to Scandinavia, the U.S. and Britain.
This is a fact these countries now seem to ignore. Then, Iceland should rather get some new friends.”
I also can’t help but notice that one of the reception rooms in the Presidential residence contains prominent photos of Ólafur with Vladimir Putin and Hu Jintao — and not a single photo, to my eyes at least, of a European leader.
Ólafur dismisses the quote, going on to say that his problem isn’t Europe, but the European and American banking system.
He says Iceland’s lesson is that
“If you want your economy to excel in the 21st century [...] a big banking sector, even a very successful banking sector, is bad news.”
“You could even argue that the bigger the banking sector is, the worse the news is for your economy,”
he adds, later blaming the huge growth of Iceland’s banking sector on the prevailing European banking philosophy and incompetent rating agencies.
Instead, the country is hoping to use not only its creative and intellectual capital, now freed from the finance industry, but also its unique geographical situation.
“The Arctic has become one of the most crucial regions for the future of the world, both in terms of economy, trade and climate and health,” he says, adding that he feels Iceland, a member of the Arctic Council, has a ten year head-start on the issue, which is now attracting the interest of the EU, China and South Korea — countries with no geographical claim on the area.
This future is something that Ólafur clearly sees himself as a part of. He had originally told the country that he would not run for president again — he had been in office for 16 years and felt he could work better without the day-to-day stress.
However, after an online petition circulating managed to get 30,000 signatures last month, Ólafur decided to run for a fifth term.
The elections will be held in June.
While other candidates have come forward, that 15 percent of the population who have already signed up would likely give Ólafur reason to believe he will win.
He says it was the “public will” of Iceland that caused him to change his mind. “If a large part of the nation wants me to continue, I will bow to that public will,” he says.
“But if that turns out to not be the case, that’s also fine with me.”
